This will have to be one of my shorter entries, as I have fallen hopelessly behind schedule in my commentaries. I shall attempt to limit myself to this week's Bergoglian attack on the Church - every week has one - as well as the most important news otherwise.

As we are all well aware by now, Ireland is no longer a Catholic country, and in fact has not been for a while. In Ireland: A Chronology of De-Christianization, ChurchMilitant.tv attempted to chronicle various low-points which led to where we now find ourselves.

Some have not given up on saving the lives of unborn in Ireland, however, and Another big rig in Ireland mentions that there were many irregularities with the referendum, to the extent that some are calling it rigged. As proof of this, the author cites the large discrepancy between the polling data and the outcome. I have no doubt that the elitists would have rigged it had they felt it necessary, I just doubt that it would have been necessary to do so. This is, after all, the same country which voted for sodomitical unions just some 2 or so years ago. It is the same country which has a sodomite as its political ruler, an elected one at that to boot. Having voted for one of the 4 sins which cry out to Heaven, it is rather fanciful to think that the Irish would not want to complete the set and vote in another one.

As if to emphasise my point, Eamon Martin, an archbishop, came out after the referendum and said that abortion should be "safe and rare" - not necessarily a direct quote. He had to walk back those words but it is nonetheless instructive that a Catholic - and I use that word extremely loosely - prelate uses the language of abortionists in response to the referendum. The very fact that protection of the unborn was removed from the constitution does not in itself mean that the battle is over. His duty should have been to make it known that Catholics are obliged to oppose legalising abortion. Alas, we have one of our effeminates mouthing off support for the culture of death.

At this point I am forced to ask: Would anyone follow this guy? Part of the problem with NOChurch is that it has given us such spineless leaders that one is ashamed to say as a Catholic that these people represent any form of hierarchy. Can anyone actually see himself lining up behind Martin in a sort of campaign for the common good? Why is it that NOChurch popes think that being an effeminate non-believer is some sort of qualification for being a bishop? It's no wonder a lot of people think that priestesses can be acceptable clerics.

It is not all doom and gloom though, and I was happy to see that the Portuguese parliament rejected euthanasia. It is a sad state of affairs though when it is the communists who come to the aid of Catholic values in what was a Catholic country just 2 generations ago.

After much consternation, the Vatican released a document saying that the Church in Germany ought not to proceed with issuing heretical guidelines which would allow protestants to receive Holy Communion. The term "heretical", is of course, one I added myself, since this term seems to have been forbidden in the 1960s even for the most obvious of heresies. The Germans were, true to form, most displeased at having to hold off on their sacrilege jumboree. The point to take home in all of this, however, is that Bergoglio only informed the Germans that it was inopportune to do it, not that it was wrong. In other words, it is a bit too early to celebrate! Wait for this one to come back to the forefront when Bergoglio finds his moment!

Whether the prohibition of sacrilege at the hands ordained ministers is cause for celebration, is obviously another matter entirely, but these are desperate times, and there is so little good news to go around.

Staying on the theme of the U.S., but this time in the secular realm, we were informed by the 9-man junta which runs the country - the supreme court - that a baker does not have to bake a cake for a sodomite pair which enters his bakery. Most of us would call this common sense, but the decision is not the victory of common sense that some have made it out to be. From what I have been able to understand, the supreme court found that a lower court had been openly prejudicial against religious arguments in siding with the sodomites. My reading is that if the civil rights court had not been as openly hostile to the baker's religious motivations, the decision would have stood. At the very least, it is unlikely to think that 7 of the judges would have come to the baker's aid in those circumstances, although we can still hope it would have been a 5-4 decision on the side of sanity (or what's left of it in the Western world anyway).

Finally, I would like to conclude with another act of Bergoglian mercy. It turns out that there is a bishop in Argentina who did not see eye-to-eye with Bergoglio in his time there. This was the bishop of La Plata - apparently an important see in Argentina - Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer. This bishop reached the arbitrary age of 75, which NOChurch has set as the age of sending in one's resignation letter to the pope. To the surprise of nobody, the resignation was accepted immediately. This is where things really get interesting...

It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.

Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!

The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.

For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.

The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.

In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.

Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.

Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.

The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!

Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains -...